|
I'd like to quote the first paragraph of the story -
"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank."
The key word to me is "replaced".
When Afghanistan was dealt with and the Taliban overthrown, the terrorists were not loyal to the Taliban. The terrorists fled. We can theorize about this all we want, but where would they have fled to? The key to that question isn't really the answer, because it doesnt matter. The point is they would have fled somewhere.
Secondly, the article points out that there are more terrorists being recruited in Iraq. Well, weren't terrorists being recruited before the invasion of Iraq? How many terrorist attacks took place prior to the invasion of Iraq? A whole bunch. It was clear that terrorists roles were increasing and that terrorists were becoming more emboldened prior to any action in the middle east.
It is logical to conclude that terrorist numbers would continue to grow. They were before. I believe it is also logical to conclude they are making a stand in Iraq and recruiting there now because they cannot afford democratic government to spread in the region. Afghanistan will not offer them safe haven anymore. If Iraq goes democratic, the very instable regime in Iran could fall (which is why the Iranians are assisting the "insurgency" in Iraq). Should the pattern continue, there will be fewer and fewer countries friendly to them, and eventually there could be none.
As had been pointed out, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists as well. Always has been even with our friendly relations with the royalty. The terrorists hate the Saudi royal family because of this. I'm not a fan of the Saudis either, mind you, and the royals are certainly no real friend of the US, but they do oppose militant Islam because militant Islam wants them dead.
So I do not buy into the theory that our actions in Iraq have made things worse. Things were bad before and were being largely ignored (this is not a blame game - we don't need to rehash 9/11 on Bush's watch nor Clinton refusing the offer to take Osama from the Sudanese). To the contrary, an enemy who wants you dead must be dealt with. While there are many theories on the best way to do it, there is no evidence that it has gotten worse as a result of Iraq. It was getting worse before, and it only makes sense to assume it would be getting worse regardless.
I completely respect those who say that they disagree with the strategy being employed. I happen to think it is the best of what is most likely a long list of not very good possibilities.
|